5141 
.MaAi 



6 ^^^^^^^^^w^^^^^ib^^^S] 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. | 

— : # 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. J 



DOCUMENTS 



RELATIVE TO 



THE CELEBRATION 



A LATE MARRIAGE 



/'- 



S PRINTED BY SMITH & MAXWETJ,. 

PHILADELPHIA. «** 

1809. 



TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATIONS 



OF 

CHRIST-CHURCH, ST. PETER'S, AND ST. JAMES'S, 

An affectionate and grateful recollection of 
the uniform kindness and indulgence which I 
have experienced from you, during the course 
of my ministry, for sixteen years — the duty 
which I owe to myself — and to a family who 
are necessarily involved in whatever affects me, 
have impelled me to lay before you such infor* 
mation and documents as will, I trust, effectu- 
ally remove the misconception of my motives, 
and the misapprehension of the principles upon 
which I acted, in the celebration of a late mar- 
riage. 

That I thought it an inexpedient connexion, 
that I wished to avoid being instrumental in 
its accomplishment, and that I finally complied, 
through a conviction of imperious duty, is evi- 
dent, from the obtrusive exertions I made to 



4 



prevent it: but, the peremptory manner in which 
Mr. P. demanded from me that religious sanc- 
tion, which, being an adult, he had a right to 
require from a minister of that episcopal church 
of which he is a member, reduced the matter in 
my mind to this point, viz. whether, in com- 
pliance with what some might call the dictates 
of prudence, I should, in this case, sacrifice my 
sense of duty, to the wishes and feelings of a 
few individuals, or even to the current of popu- 
lar opinion — or, in defiance of obloquy, sarcasm, 
and censure, boldly discharge it. Under these 
circumstances, my determination was instantly 
formed, upon those principles of firmness and 
integrity, which, I trust will ever actuate me, 
though threatened with infinitely more alarming 
consequences, than those which I have expe- 
rienced in the present instance. By celebrat- 
ing the marriage, I foresaw the displeasure of 
the numerous and highly respectable friends 
of one of the parties — by refusing to celebrate 
it, I became subject to impeachment, and the 
censures of the church : in addition to which 
consideration, finding the marriage invincibly 
determined on, I supposed that of the two modes 



5 



of celebration that by a regular episcopal cler- 
gyman would be less opprobrious in the opinion 
of Mr. P's friends, as well as in that of the pub- 
lic mind, than by a civil magistrate. 

I submit my conduct to your just and cha- 
ritable decision, after your perusal of the follow- 
ing documents: — more of a similar nature might 
be added ; but I wish not unnecessarily to tres- 
pass upon the time and attention of the reader. 
Whatever may be the result, I shall still enjoy 
the consoling reflection which arises from a con- 
sciousness of having been actuated by none 
other than pure and correct motives. 

With the most ardent sentiments of grati- 
tude, respect, and esteem, 

I am your affectionate Pastor, 

James Abercrombie. 

Philad. Oct. 27th, 1809. 



6 



The following Letters were spontaneously addres- 
sed by Mr. P. to the Chief Justice and myself 
a few days after the marriage. 

THE HONOURABLE 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TILGHMAN, 

&c. %rc. £sfc. 

Bush Hill, near Philad. Aug. \Oth. 

My Dear Sir, 

I am induced to take the liberty of addres- 
sing this letter to you, not only on account of the 
connexion which subsists between us by your 
marriage, and the high station in the country 
which you so deservedly fill, but still more so, 
on account of the great estimation in which my- 
self as well as all the principal inhabitants of 
Philadelphia hold your character. It is an act 
of justice which I am about to perform in vin- 
dicating the character of a misrepresented and 
respectable individual, The Rev. Dr. Aber- 
crombie. On Monday evening, at about 7 
o'clock, I called upon that gentleman (with 
whom I was but very slightly acquainted) and 
officially apprised him that I would wait on him 
at 8 o'clock with the lady who is now my wife, 



7 , 

for the purpose of having the marriage ceremo- 
ny performed. He used every possible argu* 
ment to dissuade me from this step, which elo- 
quence, good sense, and zeal for my interest 
could have suggested to yourself or our friend 
Bond, had either of you been present. I re- 
plied, that my determination was fixed, and that 
I applied to him officially for what he had no 
right to withhold from two adult and sane chris- 
tians, in communion with his church. I quitted 
Dr. A.'s house, and returned to it in about an 
hour, in company with my present lady and her 
sister, when the servant ushered us into the 
back parlour. In a few minutes I was sum- 
moned to Dr. A.'s study upstairs, where I found 
him in company with my intimate friend Mr. 
John H. Browne. They both appeared to have 
been in earnest conference, and to be in the 
deepest distress. Each exhausted the dissua- 
sory topics of parents and relatives, high birth, 
public opinion, and the obscurity and previous 
errors of the other party, fkc. &c. Dr. A. per- 
emptorily refused to my reiterated demands and 
intreaties the performance of the ceremony. I 
told Mr. B. that his interference harassed me to 
the extreme, and that nothing prevented my re- 
senting it as a gentleman, but respect for his 
motives, and his intimacy not only with myself 



8 



but with my honoured father. Turning to Dr. 
A. I again demanded of him compliance with a 
request, consonant with the laws both of God 
and man; assuring him that if he persevered in 
his refusal, I would immediately proceed to 
Alderman *, and enter into a civil con- 
tract of marriage, equally binding by the Laws 
of Pennsylvania. Perceiving my resolution to 
be fixed, Dr. A. performed the ceremony, think- 
ing it the lesser evil of the two. I then enter- 
tained the same opinion of it that I do at pre- 
sent; in which I natter myself that I shall long 
persevere ; I thought it the sanction and ratifi- 
cation of my happiness ; and I am not quite a 
novice in the ways of the world; nor have I 
ever been reckoned deficient in insight into the 
characters of others. I am happy to find that 
Dr. A.'s conduct meets with the cordial and 
complete sanction of our respected friend and 
venerable Diocesan, Dr. White: and I should 
hope that every man unwarped by prejudice, 
and liberal in sentiment, will acquit him of any 
the slightest imputation of precipitancy, or other 
impropriety. Surely the narrow-minded and the 
malignant may confine their censures and their 
imprecations to myself ; and I not only permit 
them, but defy them so to do, supported as I 
am, by the dictates of an approving conscience. 



9 



I should wish Dr. A.'s character to stand vin- 
dicated in the eyes of Messrs. Bond, Butler, 
Hamilton, Chew, Lenox, Edw. Tilghman, and 
our other numerous valued friends and acquaint- 
ance; consequently, I here put his case before 
the Fountain of Justice. 

With many apologies for the liberty which 
I take in making this appeal to you, and with 
every sentiment of the highest and most cordial 
esteem, 

I remain, 

My dear Sir, 

Very faithfully, 

And most obediently, 
Yours, 

Wtll'm. Penn 



10 



THE REV. DR. ABERCROMBIE, 

Bush Hill, Aug. l\th* 

My dear Siri, 

I owe equally to justice, to you, and to 
myself, the explicit avowal which I am about to 
make, on the honour of a gentleman. If this 
pledge of my veracity is not deemed sufficient, I 
am ready to make affidavit of the circumstances 
before a magistrate. This step may probably 
be necessary, since, perhaps, those who are silly 
and narrow-minded enough to object to a pro- 
testant clergyman his performance of the rites of 
his religion, (although such conduct is enjoined 
by the canons of his church, and sanctioned by 
such a diocesan as Dr. White) may choose to 
doubt the simple word of one born and educa- 
ed as myself. You displayed in the ablest and 
most energetic manner every argument that 
possibly could be suggested to dissuade me 
from marrying the lady who is now my wife. 
Surely the very slight acquaintance subsisting 
between us did not render these efforts incum- 
bent upon you. To my repeated demands of 
the performance of the church service as a mat- 
ter perfectly official, and not discretionary > you 



11 



gave reiterated refusals ; and it was only on my 
protesting that I would immediately proceed to 

the neighbouring residence of alderman 

and enter into a civil contract of marriage, equal- 
ly binding by the laws of Pennsylvania, that 
you reluctantly and coldly did your duty; think- 
ing it the lesser evil of the two. 

I am sure it is scandalous in any one, through 
illiberal rancour, or a perverted interest taken 
in one individual, to persecute another, especial- 
ly where the latter has so important an office, 
and so large a family as Dr. Abercrombie. 

Living in domestic happiness, in consonance 
with the laws of religion and morality, but one 
unpleasant idea is afloat on the surface of my 
mind, which is, that I have inadvertently and 
inconceivably injured you. With much regard 
and esteem, 

I remain, 

My dear Sir, 

Your's most faithfully, 
And much obliged, 

WlLL'M. PE.Ntf. 



12 



Finding that the popular opinion was severe, the 
popular clamour loud, in reprobation of my con- 
duct ; and, conscious that I had acted agreeably 
to the dictates of ecclesiastical authority, I so- 
licited, in conjunction with my friend The Rev. 
Dr. Andrews, the opinion of the Bishop, who, 
in compliance with our request, benevolently 
communicated it as follows : 

AN OPINION 

Relative to a supposed Case of intended Marriage. 

I have been requested by two of my breth- 
ren in the ministry, to commit to paper my 
opinion on the case contemplated. The suppo- 
sition is as follows: there exists no legal im- 
pediment to the marriage : one of the parties, at 
least, belongs to the congregation of the minis- 
ter, applied to for solemnization : also, one of 
them labours under the apparently just impu- 
tation of very faulty conduct ; while the other 
has respectable connexions, who must be sup- 
posed to be greatly distressed by the proposed 
alliance. There is further supposed, that nei- 
ther of the parties is either intoxicated or insane ; 



13 



and that there is no reason to suspect the lat- 
ter in any such sense, as is a disqualification 
for civil contracts generally. The question is — 
Should the minister, applied to, solemnize the 
marriage ? 

In the above, the degree of misconduct in 
one of the parties is not defined. The reason 
is, that, in the ensuing discussion, the argument 
will apply, whatever the degree may be. 

There appears to me — and if a mistake, it 
has attended me through the long course of my 
ministry — that under the circumstances stated, 
the minister is not left to his discretion, but is 
bound to join the parties in marriage. 

I ground the opinion on those ecclesiastical 
institutions, to which he has promised to con- 
form. The episcopal church, judging that so 
important a transaction of life ought to be con- 
ducted under the influence of religious princi- 
ple, and that this may be impressed by a reli- 
gious service for the occasion, has made such 
a provision. There would seem, as the re- 
sult of this single circumstance, that the mini- 
ster of a congregation has no right to debar a 
member of it, from the use of a service so pro- 
vided ; any more than to refuse to ofliciate at the 
funeral of such a person. 

On an attention to the rubrics, there will 
appear, that the opinion here given is presu- 



14 



med. In the first rubric, the whole matter, so 
far as the civil contract is concerned, is left to 
be regulated by the laws in the respective states; 
without any intimation or implication, that there 
may be cases, in which the minister is to be 
governed by his own sense of propriety, or by 
that of the public. In the third rubric, which 
is taken verbatim from the church of England, 
if the minister see cause to doubt of the law* 
fulness of the proposed marriage, he may de- 
mand sufficient surety for his indemnification. 
While this part of the rubric is permissive, the 
remainder of it is imperative : if no impediment 
be alleged or suspected, he is no longer left to 
his discretion, but, " he shall say," &c. proceed- 
ing in the service. 

Except in the provisions introduced into the 
service, our general conventions have chosen 
to leave the present subject, to the regulations 
of the conventions in the different States. Ac- 
cordingly, the convention in this State, has form- 
ed a canon, especially accommodated to the 
point : it is the seventh ; which, after providing 
against cases of illegality, goes on as follows : — 
" If the minister be duly certified, that there 
is no legal impediment ; he then may, and if 
either of the parties be of the congregation of 
the minister, it shall be his duty to join them in 
marriage." The language of this canon is un* 



15 



equivocal. If there should be supposed, that 
it has been hastily and inconsiderately intro- 
duced, I can testify to the contrary. Before 
the few canons, seven in number, were brought 
into the convention, they had been under the 
private consideration of discreet gentlemen ; 
some of them of legal knowledge ; who would 
have been the more likely to have foreseen in- 
conveniences, which might otherwise have been 
overlooked. In answ r er to all this, there will 
perhaps be said, that an extreme case may sus- 
pend all ordinary propriety. But how r ever ap- 
plicable, on some subjects, this supposition of 
an extreme case ; there is great danger m admit- 
ting the sentiment, when the claim is on the 
ground of right; and when the person on wiiom 
the claim is made is to be the judge of the ex- 
tremity. But besides, we may foresee, that 
wherever the feelings of connexions become 
considerably excited against a contemplated 
matrimonial union, it will appear in the shape 
of an extreme case to their minds. Such feel- 
ings, although sometimes to be approved of by 
all reasonable persons, are sometimes unreason- 
able and capricious ; and sometimes even mer- 
cenary. Who shall judge and determine ? Shall 
the right be vested in the connexions ? If so, 
what an injurious effect must this have on 
cases, in which the connexions have a pecu- 



16 

niary interest in defeating the union ! Shall it 
devolve, then, on the minister? But may he 
not have a tie to the one or the other of the 
litigant parties ; so as to be tempted either to 
gratify malice on the one hand, or to make light 
of reasonable complaints on the other ? I can 
conceive of a great variety of occasions, on 
which, if his discretion is to intervene, he must 
possess more than an ordinary share of firm- 
ness, to prevent his being made the instrument 
of other people's passions. 

As the matter stands, a clergyman has a 
discernible path to walk in. But if the con- 
trary theory be admitted, there occur to my 
mind sundry objections to it, which I proceed 
to state. 

My first objection rests on a point of moral 
obligation, and the danger of a clergyman's 
giving of his sanction to the violation of it. No 
doubt, the opinion here combated, is predicated 
on the hope, that his refusal to solemnize will 
put a stop to the design of marriage. But surely 
he ought to consider, how far he can in con- 
science contribute to that object. A man or a 
woman, at a mature age, and not as in the case 
of a minor by the violation of another's right, 
makes a matrimonial contract with one of the 
other sex, under merited reproach: there is no 
deception in the case ; and the transaction has 



17 



been for sometime contemplated. Now I ask — 
Where is the system of ethics, which will war- 
rant the reputable party, in breaking the con- 
tract with the other ? But, if such an idea be 
inadmissible in morals, what sort of an eccle- 
siastical discipline would that be, wiiich should 
compel a minister acting under it, to participate 
in the guilt of such a breach of faith ? There 
may indeed be circumstances of entanglement, 
which would palliate and perhaps justify the 
breach of promise. But it is not likely, that 
such circumstances will be within the know- 
ledge of the minister. And if they be not ab- 
solutely known to him, he is not justifiable in 
acting on the presumption of them. I. do not 
concede, that the usual endeavours and address 
of either sex, intended to make themselves 
agreeable to the other, have the effect of ac- 
quittal from obligation. There should be some 
immoral deception in the case. 

Another objection is, the difficulty of a cler- 
gyman's ascertaining how r to conduct himself, 
in relation to those who are not personally 
known to him. In the case of a young couple, 
it has been sufficient, if there have been proved, 
either that they are of age, or that there is the 
consent of parents or guardians. But on the 
principle of the ether system, we ought to in- 
quire, even when there are no parents, and 



IS 



when there cannot be guardians, whether there 
be not something in the character of one of the 
parties, which must be very painful to the feel- 
ings of worthy persons connected with the other 
party. There ought here to be recollected, that 
we are often applied to for the rite of marriage 
by persons, whose families, although not in a 
condition of life which attracts the notice of so- 
ciety at large, are not on that account the less 
alive to the sting of a dishonourable connexion. 

Some will say, that the minister need not 
make an inquiry into the question of dishonour, 
unless it be a matter of public notoriety, or an- 
nounced to him on the occasion. Without con- 
ceding that this is consistent with the opposite 
theory, I mention another objection, and that a 
serious one to every minister,— -the danger of 
subjecting himself to an action of slander. The 
presumption is here made, that no clergyman 
can with propriety repel an applying couple; 
and yet refuse to assign his reason. Let there 
be supposed a parent, hesitating to sanction 
the marriage of an adult daughter, with a man 
whom he knows to be a profligate, on such 
grounds as will be satisfactory to every judg- 
ment ; and yet perhaps not enduring the test of 
legal investigation. Now the parent has the 
advantage of being able to give such a direc- 
tion to his paternal solicitude, as ought to make 



4 



it influential over his daughter ; and this, with- 
out endangering a prosecution of himself. But 
even in the event of a prosecution, there is to 
be hoped, that he would incur very little risk 
of sustaining any material inconvenience ; un- 
less proved to have been actuated by malice. 
It would not be so with the minister ; because 
the latter could not plead any right of nature, 
or any institution of his church, to authorize his 
cognizance of the point referred to. 

Let there be the other supposition, that, of 
the couple applying, the female labours under 
the imputation of having had illicit connexions 
with other men : so as that the general voice 
of society would pronounce it a great absurdity 
and indecorum to be allied to her. How is the 
minister to ascertain this, so as to prevent the 
affirming of it, from making him amenable to the 
law? He has no authority to summon and to 
qualify witnesses. Should he descend so far 
below what becomes his station, as to go about 
iti search of evidence, it is not always to be ac- 
quired, however notorious the fact ; because, 
generally, nothing but the authority of a court 
can bring people forward to substantiate what 
they know, and what they talk of familiarly in 
private circles ; for which it will be held disho- 
nourable to make them publicly responsible. 
Let there even be supposed, that the female, in 



20 



the case put, has been the inmate of an house 
known by many as a place of prostitution. Yet 
our magistrates, and our overseers of the poor 
know very well, how difficult it often is to esta- 
blish such a fact ; when the only competent wit- 
nesses may plead, that they are not bound to 
criminate themselves. 

In objecting to what I think an exception- 
able opinion, I am at some loss, on account 
of different grounds of it, taken by different 
people. And this I feel in regard to another 
objection and predicated on an additional 
difficulty, to which the opinion would sub- 
ject the clergy. I suppose the case of a pa- 
rent's objecting to the marriage of his adult 
son or daughter. This, say some, should be a 
sufficient prohibition. If the decision be cor- 
rect, it relieves from the difficulty, now to fol- 
low. But a much larger number would say, 
that if the parent object from absurd or ca- 
pricious motives, it should go for nothing. 
The minister, then, is to decide on the suffi- 
ciency of the motives. Surely there will not 
be pretended, that such a decision should be 
given, without an impartial hearing. For here 
is a case, very different from that of a minor, 
in which the parental veto bars all question into 
the validity of the reasons. They who take 
the present ground cannot be aware of the end- 



21 



less litigations and feuds, which it may pro- 
duce between ministers and a considerable pro- 
portion of their congregations. Besides this, it 
would be a downright despotism in those parts of 
the country, in which a couple, rejected by the 
arbitrary decision of their proper Pastor, could 
not have recourse to another, without great 
trouble and expense. But, say several, if the 
objection of parents or of others rest on the im- 
moral character of a person, it ought to press 
on the conscience of a Christian minister. This 
is still met by the difficulty of proof, and 
the danger of unsupported and punishable 
accusation. In addition, the shape in which 
the remark is brought forwards renders it in- 
admissible to my mind. It is always relative 
to some occasion, when a man is disposed to 
marry a woman, with the stain of licentiousness 
on her character : never, when a woman con- 
sents to marry a man, with the like stain on his ; 
although perhaps he may be notorious for hum- 
ling some of the other sez to the very state of 
degradation, to which the position is so partially 
applied. But, say the advocates of the posi- 
tion — although there may be in one case the 
greater immorality, there is in the other the 
greater infamy. Now this is a changing of the 
ground. Immorality is the result of the break- 
ing of the laws of God : infamy is that of contra- 



22 



vening the opinion of the world. They may be 
attributes of the same subject; but they are 
motives of a very different kind. And although 
I am far from wishing to draw off from female 
chastity, any shelter which it derives from a 
respect to the opinions of mankind ; yet, for 
a clergyman, in the maxims which are to go- 
vern his official conduct, to recognize the said 
corrupt distinction in favour of his sex, is one 
of the most effective sanctions which he can 
extend, to profligacy in principle and in prac- 
tice. If a clergyman were to act on the prin- 
ciple here referred to ; what an abject time- 
server must he be, should he ever join the hand 
of a young female, placed beyond the reach of 
seduction, to that of a man of whom there is 
well known, that by means of solicitation and 
deception, he has forever blasted the prospects 
of another young female ; perhaps in a moral 
point of view, no worse than the one the first 
mentioned ; except so far as she has become so. 
in consequence of parental poverty. 

Hitherto I have been recording my senti- 
ments, as the subject respects the duty of a 
clergyman. But I now take it up as a citizen ; 
and on the ground of what I conceive to be 
correct principles of policy. There seems to 
me an absolute impossibility of framing a law, 
to prevent a man or a woman, of adult age, 



23 



from marrying, because of a stain on the cha- 
racter of the other party, without the law's 
being productive of such an extensive and ex- 
treme tyranny, as would far more than coun- 
terbalance any good intended to be accomplish- 
ed. So far as I am informed, no such law 
exists in any country. But if there ought to 
be liberty in this matter ; it will be a mere name, 
if the maxim is to be established, that odium 
on that account is to attach to the officer who 
shall celebrate the marriage. In England, the 
clergy only officiate on such occasions. But 
although a variety of instances are on record, 
of an abuse of the power; yet I never heard 
of an instance, in which such an abuse was 
charged, on any other ground than that of ille- 
gality. Is the policy of that country less care- 
ful than our own, to guard the sanctity of the 
clerical character ? A variety of considerations 
might be brought to show, that this is far from 
being the fact. And therefore I impute it to a 
different cause — that of a regard to personal 
liberty ; which would be sorely wounded, by 
measures of an opposite nature. I believe, that 
in England, in the case of a clergyman's refu- 
sing to marry one within the limits of his parish, 
the necessary forms being gone through, and no 
legal impediment appearing ; he would be liable 
ro a prosecution. But not having materials for 



24 



the proof of this, I will not positively affirm it. 
Certainly, no such impediment being in the way, 
the marriage takes place of course. And there- 
fore it has astonished me to hear pleaded for, 
among us, such restrictions on the individual, 
as would not be endured in that country ; es- 
teemed so far beneath our own, in the articles 
of personal and of civil freedom. What con- 
fusion would ensue, if such restrictions were 
ever to have the sanction of law ! They would 
destroy all criminality of connexions, which 
should come under their operation : because 
the right of marriage is confessedly attached to 
human nature ; liable to the regulations of law, 
but not to be destroyed by them. There is little 
probability, that such restrictions will ever be 
adopted by our legislature, who have repeat- 
edly refused to adopt others, here conceived — 
although it is said with respect and submission, 
—to be highly salutary, and recommended by the 
former presidents and governors of the common- 
wealth. If then there is to be no such law as 
is here objected to, but if public opinion is to 
have the same effect, I ask — Where is the dif- 
ference to the individual? But there will be 
said — If of those authorized to solemnize mar- 
riage, the respectable should refuse, there will 
be found some of another description, submit- 
ting to instrumentality in the supposed cases, 



25 



See then, to what an extremity the theory con= 
ducts. Either ministers, or magistrates, or both* 
of such a description as would render them a 
reproach to their respective orders, and nuisan- 
ces to society, are to be endured on the prin- 
ciple, on which, in some countries, the govern- 
ments license houses of prostitution. There 
is well known, that no marriage, however con- 
trary to law, can fail on that account to find a 
solemnization. But while some good citizens 
deplore this, as an evil calling for signal punish- 
ment; let not other good citizens entail the evil 
on us by maxims, which would prove it neces/- 
sary in order to prevent a worse. 

But I return to the episcopal church, to her 
clergy, and to her institutions : concerning which 
I desire it to be remembered, that I have been 
stating what I conceive the system to be. If 
any should pronounce, that it is not, in this 
respect, what it ought to be; and were I to go 
largely into the inquiry opened to me by this 
suggestion ; there is to be feared, that I might 
rise as far above some others, in regard to what 
a perfect system of ecclesiastical discipline would 
exact ; as I fall below them, in regard to the 
latitude, which I have here contended to exist. 
In both instances, however, my principles would 
favour a government of laws: leaving as little 

r> 



26 



as possible to the will of an individual clergy- 
man. 

If there be alleged, that no marriages ought 
to be allowed in a religious society, without 
a previous publication of the banns, I have no- 
thing to oppose. But I must contend, that in 
such a case, a clergyman's exercise of this part 
of his function should be confined to pairs, of 
which one at least is a member of his congre- 
gation; and can be proved so, by a defined 
standard. For in regard to all others, in a 
country in which there are no parishes in the 
civil sense of the word; I know, that the pub- 
lication of banns is a nullity; or rather worse: 
only serving as a cover to illegality, or as an 
apology for it. So are licenses, on the footing 
on which they stand in this State : in which, I 
believe, they are not supposed by any to be 
grounded on law. But it is foreign to the pur- 
pose, to speak particularly of this provision ; 
which is of a civil, and not of an ecclesiastical 
character. 

Further; if there should be contended for, 
as being the most agreeable to the genius of 
our holy religion, that, after the publication of 
banns, an immoral life, or the want of a reli- 
gious profession, alleged and proved against 
either of the parties, should prevent a clergy- 
man's officiating in the marriage; I make no 



27 



complaint of the sentiment. In such a case> 
they may be joined in the way provided for 
them by the State : for in that line, the fact 
alleged and proved should be no impediment. 
Although I hold it to be dishonourable to the 
magistracy of my country, that public opinion, 
where there is no impediment of any regula- 
tion, should turn over to that department any 
description of marriages, on the principle, that 
the solemnizing of them would be scandalous 
in a clergyman; yet the matter is otherwise, 
.when the distinction made between the civil and 
the ecclesiastical minister is the result of eccle* 
siastical legislation; operating on subjects, over 
which the civil has no control. 

Still further; if both of the above measures 
should be held to be too strong in the present 
circumstances of the church; and if there should 
be thought a use in regard to every case, in 
which a marriage is likely to produce unhappi- 
ness in a family, to make an explicit declaration, 
that the clergyman shall be — obliged, if you 
please, or at any rate — permitted to refer the 
parties to the civil administration ; neither do 
I lift up my hands against such a provision. 
Only, I would plead for the vesting of the re- 
ference, on the mere existence of the contrariety 
in the family; without subjecting the minister 
to the being a party on either side. 



28 



If even this be the requiring of too much ; 
I should warmly approve of enacting, that no 
clergyman should join any two persons, with- 
out being applied to on their behalf, some spe- 
cified time, antecedently to the day of marriage. 
This, without interfering with personal liberty, 
would give an opportunity of knowing, whether 
the party's determination to exercise it, in the 
given instance, have been the effect of mature 
consideration, or the whim of an unguarded 
moment. Without a regulation requiring such 
an intervening space of time, it would be diffi- 
cult for the minister to exact it ; because of the 
many cases occurring, in which it would be al- 
together unnecessary; while yet, to dispense 
with it in such cases and to exact it in others, 
would be an high grade of insult as to the latter. 
The regulation, if made, should comprehend 
the most unequivocal cases, in order to save 
personal feeling in the others ; which may prove 
correct also, although not immediately ascer- 
tained to be so. But the measure would be 
fruitless, if the lawless idea should be applied 
to it, that any ecclesiastical provision, however 
calculated to guard the sanctity of the matrimo- 
nial tie, (for instance, the charge addressed to 
the consciences of the parties) may be dispensed 
with at the request of a marrying pair ; and by 
the fancy of the officiating minister, that the 



29 



spirit of the measure does not require it to be 
enforced, in the particular case before him. 

Let there be remarked, that in all here sup- 
posed to be possible improvements, there is 
nothing placing a clergyman in a situation, in 
which his private opinion, and even his pas- 
sions, may prescribe his line of conduct. When 
he dismisses a couple, because they cannot 
prove to him their legal right to marry; he does 
not generally impeach them of any crime — not 
even that of intended deception in the given 
instance : because their right may be complete ; 
although he is not in possession of the evi- 
dence of it. But where their right is confessed; 
should he sit in judgment on the causes alleged 
to be sufficient to prevent his sanctioning of 
their exercise of it ; their reputation and what- 
ever is connected with it may be affected by his 
decision. 

Such is my opinion: not given, however, 
without a painful sensibility from the circum- 
stance, that, in many particulars, I have lately 
found myself differing in sentiment from per- 
sons, whose judgments I respect. And indeed, 
the opinions of some of them would have sha- 
ken my confidence in my own, however delibe- 
rately formed and long entertained; were it not, 
that I think I perceive evident proofs, that they 
contemplate the subject in one point of view 



30 



only; without extending their prospect to the 
consequences of the principles which they have 
hazarded. 

WM. WHITE, D. D. 

Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Churchy in the Common- 
wealth of Pennsylvania. 

Philad. Oct. 12th 1809. 

P. S. To the above opinion, given at the 
request of two of my clerical brethren, I add, 
in compliance with the desire of the same gen- 
tlemen, that the general tenor of the argu- 
ment of the preceding instrument, and especial- 
ly what is therein said, concerning the rubrics 
and the canons of the episcopal church, was 
intended by me to apply to a marriage solem- 
nized by The Rev. Or. Abercrombie, on the 
seventh day of August last; his conduct therein 
having been censured, from the want of know- 
ledge, as I conceive, in some instances of the 
circumstances attending the transaction; and 
in other instances, of the obligations under 
which he lay. 

I further declare my opinion, that there was 
not certified to Dr. Abercrombie any fact, impo- 
sing on him an obligation either legal or moral, 
to prevent the solemnizing of the said marriage: 
and it appears to me, that he took considerable 
pains, not incumbent on him, to avoid it. 

W. W. 



Si 



The following letter, written by a Gentleman of 
the Law, to whom the facts of this case were 
submitted, has been obligingly handed to me by 
a friend to whom it was addressed. Although it 
touches on many of the topics so ably and satis- 
factorily discussed in the preceding document, 
yet, as in some instances it shows them in ne%& 
lights, and as it contains some additional argu- 
ments and observations, I have thought it not 
inexpedient to obtain permission to publish the 
whole letter; more especially as the striking 
union of opinion, produced by no previous con- 
sultation or concert, will, in no small degree, 
strengthen the influence of each: one of them 
being supported by the highest ecclesiastical 
authority ; the other proceeding from a highly 
respectable legal source, 

MY DEAR SIR, 

The case you have proposed to me for my 
opinion is substantially this : " Two individuals, 
sane and of full age, apply to an episcopal cler- 
gyman of a church of which one of them is a 
member, demanding from him the performance 
of the rite of matrimony : — is he bound to grant 
it, or may he refuse?" Motives of delicacy, and 
an unwillingness to wound the feelings of others, 
induce me to consider the case thus abstracted- 
ly; yet I trust you will find that my arguments 



32 



and observations will have a direct bearing on the 
actual case which you have stated. 

The right of the clergyman, in such a case, 
to refuse, can only arise from a presupposed dis- 
cretion vested in him, and authorizing him to 
judge of the expediency of the proposed con- 
nexion. Let us trace the consequences of such a 
discretionary power in the clergyman ; and be- 
fore we invest him with it (in order to give every 
possible advantage to those who insist on his ex- 
ercising it) let him be selected for great prudence, 
distinguished by his knowledge of human nature, 
skilled in discerning tempers and dispositions, 
chemically accurate in defining the precise ad- 
mixture of bitter and sweet which are necessary 
to form the happiest matrimonial compound, in 
short, wise to perceive, and inclined with parental 
affection to protect the happiness of every indi- 
vidual of his flock, in the all-important matter of 
matrimonial connexion. To such a clergyman, 
A, one of his parishioners, applies, and requests 
that he may be married to B : but, there is a great 
disparity in the respective ages of the parties: 
the one is tottering with years and infirmities, 
the other is in the bloom and vigour of youth : 
or, there is a striking inequality in rank and for- 
tune : or, there is, in one of the parties, a natural 
acerbity of temper : or one of them is encumber- 



33 



ed with a family of children, or has been intem- 
perate ; in all these cases, the good clergyman 
would doubtless deem the proposed connexion 
very inexpedient : but will it be gravely said, 
that in all these cases, or in any one of them, the 
clergyman ought to exercise his judgment, and 
because he regards the proposed connexion to 
be inexpedient, or not to promise happiness to 
the parties, refuse to perform the ceremony? 

Some, however, will disclaim all idea of dis- 
cretionary power in the clergyman in such cases 
as those enumerated : these they call common 
cases, in which the parties are to be permitted to 
judge for themselves : but they imagine their 
argument is completely sustained by supposing 
an extreme case ; as, for instance, the case of a 
young man, well educated, virtuous, and respec- 
table himself, and of the most respectable con- 
nexions, proposing to marry a Prostitute. 

In the first place, let me remark, that there 
is no argument so weak or so dangerous, as that 
which is derived from the supposition of an ex- 
treme case; because of the indefiniteness of the 
very idea. What one man may deem an extreme 
case, to be excepted out of the general rule, an- 
other may regard as a common case : friends or 
relatives, actuated by pride or avarice, would be 
likely to pronounce every case extreme, which 
offends or opposes these passions. I would de- 

E 



34 



mand of those who use this argument, to define 
the boundary beyond which the clergyman's dis- 
cretion is to begin, and within which he is to act 
ministerially without exercising either judgment 
or discretion. It is obvious that no such boun- 
dary can be fixed; that it must depend upon the 
sentiment, the confidence, the charity, the pride, 
the affection, the interest, of each individual. Is 
then a clergyman to be governed by a law so ar- 
bitrary and uncertain ; or must he act on his own 
responsibility in an affair about which public 
opinion may be so discordant, and yet be after- 
wards judged by that opinion ? Here , let me say 
a word of consolation to the fond parent, who 
imagines that his happiness is put at hazard, by 
the possibility that a virtuous and dutiful son 
may be forever ruined by a connexion with such 
a female as the above stated case supposes. 
Let him assure himself that his apprehensions 
are unfounded. I challenge the production of an 
instance of such a connexion formed by a virtu- 
ous and dutiful son ; and if it happen only in cases 
of abandoned profligacy and vice, I know not that 
the sufferings of a parent would be increased, 
were his son, instead of roving through all the 
stews of the suburbs, to confine himself to one 
individual selected from among them. I may, 
with propriety, add further, that the parent, who 
has performed his duty in the education of his 



^son, and has instilled into his mind, in early 
life, religious, moral, and honourable principles, 
has little reason to fear such an aberration from 
the path of rectitude. If such aberration should, 
notwithstanding, take place, it must be attribu- 
ted to some natural and inherent proneness to 
vice, which no human force or influence can re- 
strain or subdue. 

But to return to the case stated, however 
improbable. The clergyman, it is said, must 
judge for himself, he must exercise his discre- 
tion ; and the former incoiitinency of one of the 
parties is a ground on which he is bound to re- 
fuse the rite of marriage. Upon what evidence 
then is he to proceed? If he is to judge, he 
ought to have the materials to form that judg- 
ment, the facts of the case. How are they to be 
ascertained? Is he to content himself with ru- 
mour ? Is he to take the imputation of prostitu- 
tion from the mouth of him or her who gave it 
to him, or to follow it back until he comes to 
very fact wKich gave it rise? Is he to have the 
the pow T er of compelling individuals to disclose 
their Knowledge, or may he call in aid the pow- 
er of the civil magistrate for that purpose? 
Dreadful, indeed, would be the situation of a 
conscientious man, compelled to judge, and yet 
possessing no power of obtaining the lignts of 
evidence ! Yet further, if it be the duty of the 



36 



Clergyman to exercise his own discretion, he is 
bound, in all cases, to make the inquiries neces- 
sary to enable him so to do. It is not sufficient 
that he should be able to say, I did not know of 
the incontinency of the individual r his respon- 
sibility permits no plea of ignorance, if by any 
possible pains he might have been informed. 
But say that the incontinency of the party is 
known to the clergyman by evidence which he 
can neither doubt nor disbelieve : here we shall 
be told is a plain case, trammeled with none of 
the difficulties which have been stated — Let us 
then consider it. 

First, then, after no careless search, in Burn's 
Ecclesiastical Law, Godolphin's Ecclesiastical 
Law, and other English authorities equally res- 
pectable, I can discover no case in which the in- 
continency of one of the parties has ever been- 
alleged as a reason for forbidding the banns, 
and I infer that no such reason was ever offered 
or could be admitted.* 

* In Godolphin's highly respected Treatise on Ecclesiastical Law, 
page 466, title " Banns," it is stated, that " no license for the solemni - 
zation of marriage shall be granted, 8cc. but upon good caution or secu - 
rity, which shall contain these four conditions : 1. That therein is not 
any impediment or precontract, consanguinity, affinity, or other lawful 
cause, to hinder the said marriage. — 2. That there is not any suit de- 
pending in any court before any ecclesiastical judge, touching any con- 
tract or marriage of either of the parties with any other. — 3. That 
they have the consent of parents or guardians" (which can on]y be re- 
tired where the. parties are miners).— 4. " That they shall celebrate 



37 



Secondly, by a recurrence to the same autho- 
rities, I find that a clergyman, who disobeys the 
canons of the church, is liable to deprivation! 

And, thirdly, by the municipal law, the in- 
continency of one of the parties, whether known 
or not known, never was, and never can be, a bar 
to the other party recovering a compensation for 
a breach of a contract to marry.! 

the marriage in the parish church," &c. (which last condition is not re 
quired by the rubric of the episcopal church here, which permits 
private marriages). 

The Act of Assembly of 1700, begins by stating, that all marriages, 
not forbidden by the laws of God, shall be encouraged ; — the parties' 
clearness of all engagements (that is, precontracts) shall be certified: — 
notice must be given to parents, masters, mistresses, or guardians (but 
this can only be required where the parties, or one of them, are minors, 
apprentices or servants) : and the Act of 1705, declares, that all mar- 
riages thereafter made, being ivitkin the degrees of consanguinity 
or affinity, shall be void. 

Not a word with respect to the incontinency of either of the parties. 

f The canon of the episcopal church, after providing for cases of 
illegality (without even hinting at incontinency as one of them) de- 
clares, " that if the minister be certified that there is no legal impedi- 
ment, he then may, and if either of the parties be of the congregation 
of the minister it shall be his duty to join them in marriage,'' 
Can words be found more imperative ? 

Godolphin, title " Deprivation," page 306, places the cases of de- 
privation under three heads; 1. Want of capacity. 2. Contempt. 
3. Crime. — He then enumerates particular instances, and among the 
rest, " Incorrigibleness and obstinate disobedience to the approved 
canons of the church." 

It would be a waste of labour, and a trial of the patience of the 
reader to multiply authorities on a point so obvious. 

% Whatever effect the incontinency of one of the parties, if conceal- 
ed from the other at the time of the contract, might have cn the quan- 
tum of damages, it wouid not invalidate it : if not concealed, it could 
have no effect at all, either on the quantum or the right to recover. 



38 



These positions will not, I am sure, be con- 
tradicted; and they form, in my mind, a com- 
plete answer to every thing that can be ob- 
jected. It is true, they are here rested partly 
on the authorities of another country. But it is 
a country to which we owe our origin and some 
of our best institutions, and what has been con- 
secrated by long experience there, it is wise 
in us to receive and respect, as convincing au- 
thority. 

But again, precontract, by the ecclesiastical 
law, and by our municipal law, is a legal ground 
of forbidding the banns, and, if certified to the 
clergyman, he is bound to refuse them. What 
if the precontract be with a person notoriously 
incontinent, is it then to be regarded as nothing ? 
But that cannot be, for incontinency, as has 
been already stated, neither by the ecclesias- 
tical nor the municipal law, will warrant the 
rescinding of the contract. Surely in morality, 
as in law, a contract made with an incontinent, 
is not therefore the less binding; and if it be 
illegal and immoral for a party to such a 
contract to break it, is it less so in a clergyman, 
as far as in him lies, to cause it to be broken? 
Here, however, it will be said, that the breaking 
of the contract is not the necessary consequence 
of a refusal of one clergyman to aid in the exe- 
cution of it : that the parties may go to another 



clergyman ; or if none such can be found willing 
to celebrate the marriage, they may proceed to 
a civil magistrate. Now, can an argument of this 
kind be for one moment tolerated by any man of 
common sense or sound morality ? A contract 
of marriage is entered into- — the breach of it is 
immoral — to assist (positively or negatively) in 
effecting such breach is immoral: but one cler- 
gyman may morally refuse to celebrate it, be- 
cause another, or a civil magistrate, may be 
found, who will not refuse ! Can a man, in any 
case, be permitted to justify the nonperform- 
ance of a duty, by showing that if he neglects it, 
it will be performed by another? 

The same answer may well be given to those 
who admit that a man has a right to be married 
to whom he will, but insist that A, B, or C, does 
not invade his right by refusing to perform the 
ceremony, because he may still exercise it by ap- 
plying to some other. But if A, B, and C, may 
and ought to withhold the ceremony, may not, 
and ought not, every other clergyman, and 
every magistrate, to withhold it also ; and, if 
so, what is to become of the right of the party r 

From all these views of the subject, I am 
decidedly of opinion, that to give a discretion- 
ary power to a clergyman to' refuse the matri- 
monial rite, in any case, to individuals, who, by 
the ecclesiastical and municipal laws are enti- 



40 



tied to it, would cast a painful and cruel re- 
sponsibility on him — would impose the neces- 
sity of judging without the means of forming 
a judgment, would lead to immoral breaches 
of contract and impair the rights of the citizen. 
The causes for forbidding the banns are known 
and defined, and where any of them is duly 
certified, the clergyman cannot celebrate the 
marriage. Here then is a plain and distinct 
rule marking his duties and settling the rights 
of the parties. But the moment you open the 
door to discretionary power, all becomes confu- 
sed, arbitrary, and uncertain. We are not content 
to hold our civil rights on such a tenure where 
property, reputation, or liberty are to be affect- 
ed ; nor will it be submitted to, that a right given 
by the law of God and man should rest on so 
precarious a footing, as the good will and .discre- 
tion of those whose official act is necessary to the 
enjoyment of it. A sane adult who applies to his 
clergyman to perform the marriage ceremony 
asks only the performance of a ministerial duty, 
and the clergyman who undertakes to inquire into 
or express an opinion on, the expediency of the 
proposed connexion, is out of the pale of his 
duty, and exposes himself to the charge (how- 
ever benevolent his motives) of unwarrantable 
interference with the business and the care of 
another. 



41 



Let me add one observation more. The case 
which I have stated, supposes the sanity of the 
parties. — A contract implies assent, which is an 
act of the understanding, and if that be destroyed, 
no contract can be entered into. A clergyman 
would therefore be indefensible, who should, 
knowingly, perform the matrimonial rite in a 
case where one of the parties is insane. But 
what is the kind of sanity which the law and 
reason require to perfect a contract ? Surely 
the wisdom of a Solon will not be demanded. 
Nor is a man disqualified to contract because 
the world should choose to call him a madman 
for entering into the contract which is question- 
ed. A late great and distinguished English 
statesman married his mistress, with whom he 
had lived for years, for which he probably was, 
and perhaps with propriety in common parlance, 
called a madman: yet he was deemed a wise 
man, whatever was thought of his morals. We 
must fix a criterion adapted to the ordinary situa- 
tion of mankind; and this the law has done, by 
declaring that wherever the understanding is 
sufficient to admit of mental assent to a contract, 
it is enough. 

But surely where a man is permitted by his 
friends to be at large, to manage his pecuniary 
matters uncontrolled, to make his bargains and 

F 



42 



contracts by himself, and for himself, they will 
not be permitted to stultify him at their pleasure. 
If he really labour under the mental malady 
imputed to him, so as to disqualify him to make 
a contract, they ought, in justice to him, to socie- 
ty, and to themselves, to take such measures as 
the law provides, for preventing him from con- 
tracting in any case. A commission of lunacy, 
which is readily obtained, would at once decide 
the fact) and if necessary, give them the preven- 
tive power they so much wish to possess. In- 
deed, if insanity can be shown, the very con- 
tract complained of is absolutely null and void. 
Nor will peculiarities in modes of thinking, or 
eccentricity of manners ever be deemed suffi- 
cient to warrant an imputation of mental de- 
rangement. — These peculiarities and eccentri- 
cities are often merely the offspring of early 
impressions and associations; and we perhaps 
most frequently see them in men endowed with 
the greatest natural talents, and improved by 
the highest degree of cultivation. From what 
I have learned of others, I believe a more stri- 
king instance of this union of brilliant talents^ 
of a highly cultivated mind, and of peculiar 
modes of thinking and acting (probably the 
effects merely of education, and long continu- 
ance in a state of society to which nothing in 



43 



this country bears any similarity) could rarely 
be found, than is exhibited in the conversation, 
the correspondence, and in some of the actions 
of Mr. P. Let those who insinuate mental de- 
rangement (for I have met with none bold 
enough to assert it) look at his letters, written 
in reference to this transaction, to the Chief Jus- 
tice Tilghman, and to Dr. A. ; let them inquire 
of men who know him best, who have had op- 
portunities of listening to his conversation, and 
are acquainted with the extent of his knowledge 
of men and books; and I confidently assert that 
few, if any, of the wisest of them, would be wil- 
ling to encounter a comparison of their own pre- 
tensions with his. Indeed, it is greatly to be 
lamented, that some persons uninformed on the 
subject, and under the mask of benevolence, 
have felt themselves warranted so indecorously 
and injuriously to drag a gentleman before the 
public, who has acted on his own responsibility 
in an affair so near to his happiness, and in 
which no human being had a right to fetter or 
control him. The place where this inhospita- 
ble and unkind treatment has been received, 
must give unusual acuteness to the pain which 
it inflicts — Pennsylvania owes some gratitude 
and respect to those whose veins are filled with 
the blood of her virtuous and benevolent Founder , 



44 



Your patience shall not be longer taxed, 
than while I make one other remark; to which 
some of the considerations contained in this 
letter have led me, and which may be deemed 
not out of place here, upon the power given to the 
civil magistrate in this country to solemnize mar- 
riage. Matrimony, it is true, is a civil contract, 
and imposes many rights and duties which are 
to be enforced only in the temporal courts. 
These need not be enumerated — But there are 
rights and duties arising out of this contract 
which temporal courts cannot possibly reach, 
and which seem therefore to require the high- 
est sanction which can be given to them, — that 
of religion. Why is it that a religious sanction 
is called in aid of the civil authority, for the 
purpose of ascertaining truth, by the evidence 
of witnesses, in the administration of an oath ? 
Because, experience shows us, that a religious 
test strikes fire from many a conscience, which 
would otherwise remain cold and inanimate in 
defiance of all the pains and penalties of per- 
jury! — It is obviously under a solemn convic- 
tion of the propriety and expediency of making 
matrimony a religious rite, that, notwithstand- 
ing the law permits it to be administered by 
the magistrate, there is no one sect which has 
not provided for it in their religious ceremo 



45 



nies,— and which does not consider the perform- 
ance of it in any other way as derogatory and 
irregular. The respectable society of Friends, 
regardless as they are of ceremonies considered 
merely as such, never permit such an irregu- 
larity to go unpunished by the severest cen- 
sure and reprobation which is known to their 
society. Without intending to say any thing 
disrespectful of the magistracy (for I know that 
many of them accord with me in the sentiment) 
I cannot but give it as my opinion, that the ob- 
ligations contracted by marriage, would be more 
seriously weighed, and would not so often be 
" entered into unadvisedly or lightly ," if it were in 
all cases associated with religious ceremony. 
In England, I believe matrimony was uniformly 
a matter of ecclesiastical authority, until the 
misrule of Cromwell, when, Hypocrisy, wearing 
the mask of Religion, struck but too success- 
fully at her very vitals — She was really aimed 
at, when the blow was received by her minis- 
ters. To disgrace them (for the historian gives 
us no other reason for the measure) marriage 
was considered a matter of mere civil contract, re- 
quiring scarcely any greater solemnity than the 
grant of a chattel. The returning good sense 
of the British nation, among its first efforts to 
restore society to its former purity, took matrimo- 



46 



ny from the civil magistrate, and replaced it 
under the guardianship of religion. In France, 
too, we find that among the innumerable enor- 
mities produced by her late distractions, when 
she solemnly, in her public assemblies, de- 
nounced all religion — denounced God himself, 
and denied his existence, — Matrimony was at 
first subjected exclusively to the jurisdiction of 
magistrates ; and afterwards, by a very natural 
progress, became a mere temporary engagement y 
obligatory no longer than suited the whim, the 
temper, or the imaginary convenience of either 
of the parties ; and, had the system been longer 
persevered in, we might, in a few years, have 
beheld a nation, the females of which would 
have been all prostitutes, and the children all 
illegitimate! The man who now sits on the Im- 
perial Throne, has the wisdom to perceive, 
that, without the aid of Religion, Morality 
can do little, or rather cannot exist; he has, 
therefore, perhaps as a matter of temporal 
policy only, restored to her the Temple and 
the Sanctuary. At the same time too, he 
has invoked her aid in the administration of 
justice, and required her sanction to give va- 
lidity to the marriage contract. — The facility 
with which divorces are obtained, is also a great 
and mischievous evil in our country, worthy of 



47 



serious consideration. It arises from the same 
laxity of system which has occasiohed the evil 
above inveighed against, and is attended with 
the most deplorable consequences to the de- 
cency and virtue of society. 

I am, dear Sir, 
Very respectfully, 

' Your obedient and obliged servant^ 



To - 



Philad. Nov, 11, 1809. 



LIBRARY OF COiM G RESSS^ 

0™ 897 774 1 



